|
1960 marked the first year where television appears to have played a crucial role in deciding the outcome of a political election. In 1956, approximately 80% of households had a television set (1), however the election was clearly in hand for Eisenhower. Any impact television could have on an election where there is a clear winner is negligible. However, 1960, the year of the first televised debates, saw an election so close that the man who took the popular vote nearly did not become president. Every advantage and everything to be thought of has importance in elections of that sort. In 1956, 86% of adults in the United States indicated that they watched
the Republican National Convention on television and the number is virtually
identical for the Democratic convention as well (2) As one might expect, the popularity of television increased with time. As referenced before, in 1956, 83% of persons interviewed said that they owned a television (1). Just two years later, that number rose to 88% (3). With all of these people watching television, it would seem that a new method of appealing to the populus was available. The important question for candidates in 1960 was: How can we take advantage of this? An entire industry composed of many coroporations is now dedicated to understanding questions like that. In 1960, however, television was a largely untapped resource in the world of politics. How to market a candidate on television was an important question and in an election as close as the 1960 election was, every small tactic could make the difference in the campaign. Indeed, it has become popular wisdom that John F. Kennedy took his very narrow popular vote lead and enough of the electoral votes in the nation to win primarily because he looked better on television. Consider the issues that television raises for a candidate:
Clearly, the increasing popularity of TV through the years shows that it became a more and more powerful tool for candidates. A poll from 1965 indicated that 67% of people watched television at least as much, or more, as a few years prior (4). By 1966, nearly 24% of television owners had more than one set in their home. Every statistic seems to point towards a vast increase in television use. Examine, then, the advantage that John F. Kennedy had in 1960. Whether he realized it or not, Kennedy's young, clean look may have won him the election. Though they are more popular today, and appear in more forms, even parodies of the two candidates portrayed Nixon as gruff, stern and old while Kennedy's boyish charm was his exaggerated feature. It's widely recognized that people did not respond well to Nixon's unshaven, sweaty appearance on television. Had appearance been reversed, would Nixon have taken the less-than-200,000 more votes he needed to win? There is certainly no guarantee, but logic would dictate that it would be at least a distinct possibility, if not a probability. Given the demonstrated prevalence of television, it seems that a candidate's appearance became of the utmost importance. Television became a way for a candidate to appear before the people and not only present his case for election but present himself in a certain image. Questions like "Should I opt for the red, power tie or the blue, sympathetic tie?" became important. An entire profession is now made out of creating a candidate's image, and in some cases, assassinating that image. A large portion of that image is derived from the television set, and 1960 saw the beginning of this change. Since then, a candidate's TV persona has become almost as important as what the candidate says.
[ Home ] [ 1960 ] [ 2000 ] [ Comparison ] [ Timeline ] |
[ 
.
Clearly television audiences were becoming a prime target for political
candidates due to the increase in the population that was watching TV,
in some cases expressly for political information. As such, it would
make sense for politicians to focus on the television as a prime method
of reaching the populus.